Why do so many people seem ‘triggered’ by Oasis?

[Blueybanditbingochilli]

For want of a better word.

If I saw a band I didn’t like were reforming, it wouldn’t stay in my head longer than a split second, it would be absolutely nothing to me.

Yet we’ve had multiple threads from posters demanding to know why anyone is buying tickets, why don’t people agree that they’re shit, how superior their own music taste is and what a better person they are for it (😂). I would never demand to know why somebody likes something I don’t, it just seems so arrogant and the answer so obvious.

If the band are aiming to be a bit ‘marmite’ they’ve clearly got the result they wanted!

I feel much the same when someone tries to deny that the 80s were about twenty years ago. Lies, utter lies. I just ignore them. I'd advise you to do the same. 🙂

haha maybe that's my problem 😅

People (on here, at least) hate others enjoying themselves. Bands are shit, dogs are shit, football is shit, Christmas … shit, tv … shit and on it goes. Any snide dig to dampen someone’s fun.

If you were a young girl, you wouldn't have experienced lad culture.

Oasis were never as popular as Taylor swift is.

I’m always amused when people think the news agenda should be tailored to their own personal interests, as if a huge cultural phenomenon somehow be treated as a non-event just because they personally don’t wish to engage with it

You’ve summarised my feelings really well.

@wombat15 Of course they were 😂

Some people just love a whinge.

I was aged 8 - 18.

Looking back, the attitude to the sexual exploitation of teenage girls was awful back then. Men who were caught sleeping with underage “prostitutes” in their early teens were often let off with a warning. And some “Page 3 Girls” took part in nude photo shoots while still only 15, so the photos could be published on their 16th birthdays.

@Jumpingthruhoops that's so not true, I was 16 in 1990 and there were so many better bands around, Pulp, Blur, Gene, Echobelly, Elastica etc (I was a Britpop fan, can you tell?).

Anyway, if someone asked me what one band summed up the 90s my answer wouldn't be Oasis.

I actually have no fucking clue what class I am and don't particularly care so that's not why I loathe Oasis to the point where just the mention of them enrages me, it's their arrogance, attitude, the LADS who formed most of their fanbase and the fact that IMO they are terrible role models. The music is the least of it. I like a few of their songs but am fairly meh about most of them and a few force me to turn the radio off.

At least Taylor Swift seems a genuinely nice person although without knowing her personally it could all be hogwash, but she seems a better role model for younger girls.

Im not fan of Oasis particularly, I might hum along with their tunes on the radio

But that article and the Guardian can fuck off

Damaging?

Not as damaging as many of their writers' narratives about identity politics.

The main argument here seems to be they disagree with opinions or views that have been expressed over the years, well so what? Are only musicians/actors/telly presenters that toe the Guardian line allowed to be in the media? Well scrap that, according to lots of people that is the case isnt it.

They weren't anywhere near as successful. Taylor swift is a billionaire.

Some people on this website genuinely can’t comprehend that other people are different to them. It’s really weird, especially since it’s a site geared towards adults and not children, who you’d expect to think that way

As solidly working class person, I find quite insulting the implication that I have to like shit, plodding, derivative music otherwise I'm some kind of snob or traitor. That's what winds me up about it. And if you try and push back on that point even slightly then it results in accusations like the OP.

That Guardian article sums it up. If you actually read it, it's basically a criticism of the Gallaghers shouting "queer" at people and generally behaving like arseholes - seems a reasonable point to me. Yet some GB news twat literally described it as "open hatred of the working class", as echoed by PP here.

Is behaving like a hooligan synonymous with being WC? I don't think it is. I find it extremely patronising and insulting to the WC to make that connection. I and lots of my friends and family happen to enjoy original, inventive music, and dislike nursery rhyme lyrics stuck over repeated G, Am, C and D chords, is that really such a betrayal of my roots?!

It's the thoughts of what the crowd will be like that's put me off. I know what it was like years ago when I was teens/20s and the thought of it in my 40s, with the added irritation of people having their phones up now, watching through the screen (something we were thankfully spared from back then) makes my body and head hurt ahead of time 😂 Last time I saw them in late 00s, it was pissing down with rain too so you didn't know if you were soaking from rain or a mix of rain and piss 🤢

@soupfiend exactly

The writer seems to think that they have "knuckle dragging idea about politics" because they didn't support Jeremy Corbyn ffs.

Because Oasis were regressive even when brand new.
Working class Manic Street Preachers were confident enough to defy 90s homophobia.
Working class Pulp, told stories about people men & women.
Oasis took one Beatles album, found the slow songs they could manage on their poorly tuned instruments and played a blinder of a marketing game.
It was lazy journalism in the 90s, they didn't define the moment for most of us and it's lazy now.

I agree. I wonder if those that think they defined the 90s were children or not even born then. They were popular but there were many other very popular bands around at the time e.g blur, suede, pulp

I think there's a massive nostalgia wave.
I was in my early-mid 20s in the Britpop era. The music was angry and political, before social media was available for the ordinary person to make angry, political comments. The Blair landslide election in 1997, the music, the zeitgeist was hugely optimistic. Regardless of what you think of Oasis' music and the saga of the Gallagher brothers' relationship, it represents a generally good time in UK social history and politics. The twenty somethings of the 1990s are the 50 somethings of today, with better incomes and desperation to reconnect with their youth at a time of life closer to pensions than student loans.

I loved Oasis, never stopped listening to them, but I was 25 and everything was great in 1995! I was there in the 90s, I have no desire to stand in a muddy field full of coke-d up 50 somethings pee'ing in bottles. I get that Heaton Park is the spiritual home of Madchester, but it's a crap venue.

Society (fuelled by social media) has become totally introspective. Everything has to be about the "self". The idea that you can be at the centre of something, or triggered by something, or suffer mental health consequences is the new normal. Nobody just "lives" anymore, nobody gets a bit upset anymore, a bit pissed off anymore, nobody is indifferent anymore. Everything has to be analysed and computed in terms of how it affects you emotionally, historically, hysterically!

Quite

But even if they did, who cares.

I dont care what politics someone has unless they are actually a politician.

This is a pop band, playing some gigs. Go and see them if you like their music. Dont, if you dont.

Fairly simple

Exactly this - people are against the subset of fans who think they are lads, piss in bottles at concerts and look up to people like Liam. Making a career out of never taking your coat off is quite admirable though. You do not get wee throwing I assume at Taylor Swift and I have not seen that with James or New Order.

I bet Stone Island are rubbing their hands together as all scrotey (not sure if that should have an e or not) element of the fans will want to buy some new togs for the gig.

Agree OP. Oasis seems to trigger people in this country more than any other band. Oasis had an impact worldwide - people forget that. There wasn't social media or as much internet so it wasn't obvious as Swift now. I grew up thousands of miles away in the 80/90s and they were huge in my home country. It was a certain hedonism and lad culture that permeated world wide in different ways - they were a product of that culture, they didn't create it!! So they definitely are iconic for a generation - the numbers of internationals travelling to these gigs will be immense. They aren't doing it for the heck of it but a genuine love. And a lot of mardy bums in this country don't really understand it or are a part of it. Brit pop was a genre of its own and Oasis were the most accessible.

It's like people who don't understand 90s rave culture or even raves now. Those don't make media headlines because it's not as accessible or popular. There will always be people who hate certain trends, hype etc because it makes them feel marginalised and insecurity kicks in. A bit like peer pressure at school, some can shrug it off and not care - others feel like outsiders and angry. Also people aren't realising that 90s Lad culture isn't as prevalent now - was a different time. Like football hooliganism, games aren't anywhere near as bad. Swift might be important for the younger generation now and oasis are important for multiple generations. Tbh so many Swift songs are about relationships and breakups, which is as damaging to young women than oasis were to young men back then. But there will always be musicians and if they polarise: means they're done their job about defining themselves!

People on here were claiming not to even know who Taylor Swift was a few months ago 😂